Category Archives: Health

There is compelling evidence that vegetarian and vegans diets are healthier than those that include animal meat or animal products. (Find a brief overview of the literature here.) Furthermore, compelling evidence suggest that vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diets promote longevity. (And the evidence that eating processed meats is bad for you is overwhelming.)

The main types of vegetarian diets are:

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarainism- No meat but incluces eggs and dairy products;
Ovo Vegetarainism – No meat or dairy products but includes eggs;
Lacto Vegetarainism – No meat or eggs but includes dairy products;
Veganism – No meat or any animal products.

The main nutrional worries about plant-based diets are that they lack: 1) protein; 2) vitamin B-12; 3) omega-3 fatty acids; 4) calcuim; 5) iron; and/or 6) vitamin D and D2. For ovo, lacto, or ovo-lacto vegetarians, the response to these worries is straightforward; for vegans getting all your nutrients is somewhat problematic. Before I proceed, a disclaimer. I am not a physician, nutritionist, dietician, or any other kind of health professional. So don’t take what follows to be medical advice.

With the disclaimer in place, here are a few options for providing these nutrients:

Vitamin D and D-2 – The human body generates vitamin D with sufficient and sensible exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight.[90][91] In addition, cow’s milk, soy milk and cereal grains may be fortified to provide a source of Vitamin D.[92]

For vegans, alfalfa and most mushrooms (fungus) contain vitamin D. In addition, there are vitamin D supplements.

Note – To reiterate, animal product based diets are associated with all sorts of health problems and lack many essentail nutrients. Furthermore, there are both moral and environmental reasons recommending vegetarianism in addition to its health benefits. Non-human animal suffering underlies the moral reasons, and the catastrophic environmental impact of meat eating grounds the environmental argument.

FInally, at the Oldways Finding Common Ground conference in Boston, MA on November 17-18, 2015, a group of leading nutrition and food systems experts reached consensus on the following points of common ground about healthy eating, as outlined below (or download PDF here):

The overall body of evidence examined by the 2015 DGAC identiﬁes that a healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and reﬁned grains. Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of ﬂexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions. Current research also strongly demonstrates that regular physical activity promotes health and reduces chronic disease risk. (Source: 2015 DGAC summary wording)

Share this:

(This article was reprinted in the online magazine of the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, May 5, 2016.)

(Disclaimer – I’m not a medical doctor. For more info on these topics consult an M.D.)

I was thinking about a friend who quit smoking about 10 years ago with the help of nicotine gum. She eventually kicked the nicotine gum habit too, although she claimed that it was about as difficult to quit the gum as it was the cigarettes. She did notice that her ability to deal with anxiety was reduced after quitting the gum, and she also became more depressed. As a result, she has considered starting to chew gum again.

Her main arguments against chewing the gum are: 1) the cost of the gum; 2) the worry that she’ll always have enough gum; 3) possible dental issues caused by the gum; and 4) the sense of failure she feels by relying on this crutch. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the gum will minimize her anxiety or depression, although there is some reason to think it will.

The main argument for chewing the gum is the reduction in anxiety and depression. (There are good reasons to think nicotine can help.) The thing to remember about this benefit, if it occurs, is that it is substantial and multi-faceted. Not only would she feel better—because her anxiety and depression would be minimized—but she would be able to participate in, and better enjoy, things that would make her life go better, like social relationships and productive work. Moreover, this reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms would have good consequences for her physical health. (This assumes there are no negative health risks from chewing small doses of nicotine. As best as I can determine, there are no health risks.) So nicotine gum might both minimize her negative symptoms, and make it more likely that she participates in activities that help alleviate her symptoms. You don’t want to join a group or do productive work if you are anxious and depressed.

Now let’s consider her arguments against using the gum. If you can’t afford it, then you can’t buy the gum. In her case, she can afford it, although the $60 or so a month is costly. The worry about having the gum readily available is a reasonable one, although it isn’t any different from worry about having any other kind of medicine with you. That is a small price to pay if a medicine is effective. As for oral health, the evidence suggests it has no ill effects, at least as far as I can tell.

The fourth argument is particularly interesting, but I think ultimately fallacious. There are many “crutches” people use to get by including, but not limited to alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, religion, therapy and exercise. We also depend on things for our well-being like air, water, medicine, and more. If something helps you live better and doesn’t hurt anyone else, why not utilize the help? In fact, given that our behavior affects others, we may be morally obligated to do what’s necessary to help ourselves so as to be in a better position to help others. So if someone tells me they need to take some medicine or other drugs to physically or psychologically function, or they need to go the therapist or to church or for a long jog, I say … go for it. And those who say otherwise are probably motivated by things like guilt, perfectionism, or the desire to control others.

To place this issue in a philosophical context consider that we are all thrown into this world without our consent. We must live in a world about which ultimately we know very little. We don’t know for certain what to believe or what we should do. All we can do then is our best. The philosopher and psychologist William James, who was himself tormented by depression, expressed these sentiments beautifully:

We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we may be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ‘Be strong, and of good courage.’ Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. If death ends all, we cannot meet death better.

Share this:

In the last few weeks I have spent a lot of time visiting hospitals. There is something about being in a hospital, even as a mere visitor, which transports you to a different world. Of course you could say the same of churches, casinos, sports stadiums, or jails. Churches are filled with both hope and absurdity, casinos and stadiums with mindless distractions, jails with utter hopelessness and despair. Perhaps where they take you to is better or worse than where you came from.

But hospitals are unique; they smell of death, disease and dysfunction. Within their walls you encounter the consequences of being bodies; you encounter the earthiness and the ugliness of human bodies and their generated minds. You encounter humanity. Let no one deceive you; the encounter is, at once, both humbling and distasteful. Imagine then what it must be like to be a patient. Yes, there are good people trying to help you, but eventually they will fail. You have, perhaps for the first time, noticed mortality. As a patient, you have literally been transported from the world of the living, to the world of the dying.

It is easy to see then why our culture idolizes youthful, vital bodies and minds. They glow, they seem immortal. Their skin has no wrinkles, their backs are not hunched, their hair has not thinned, their brains work quickly. But those youthful bodies and brains are decaying before our eyes, and even some wisdom and patience do come to them, they will ultimately fail. The process is not pretty; aging is not for sissies.

Being in a hospital makes me wonder why people are so attached to their bodies. Tell them you are a transhumanist, who looks forward to a genetically engineered or robotic body, or a life without a body in a computer generated reality, and they retreat in horror. I think if they spent more time in hospitals, they might change their minds. There is nothing noble about having the bodies and brains of modified monkeys; nothing much good about being controlled by bodies and brains forged in the Pleistocene. Perhaps that’s why human being deceive themselves, they don’t want to know what they really are, they want to believe they are angels. But they are not. As Shakespeare put it:

But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d;
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep.

The world should make us weep; it would make the gods and angels weep if there were any. But there are not. There are only modified apes, with the authority over the survival of an entire planet. I want to be more than a modified monkey. How I wish we could all be more. Let us not pause then, let us go forward. I’ll let Walt Whitman have the last word.

This day before dawn I ascended a hill,
and look’d at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my Spirit,When we become the enfolders of those orbs,
and the pleasure and knowledge of everything in them,
shall we be fill’d and satisfied then?
And my Spirit said:
No, we but level that lift,
to pass and continue beyond.

Share this:

(This article was reprinted in the online magazine of Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, March 13, 2015. )

A few days ago there was an interesting article in the New York Times, “The Feel-Good Gene,” by a professor of clinical psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College. The author wonders why some people are predisposed to a type of anxiety which doesn’t have obvious environmental causes, and which is thus not helped by psychotherapy; while others are immune to such anxiety.

Not surprisingly, the answer is that “a genetic variation in the brain makes some people inherently less anxious, and more able to forget fearful and unpleasant experiences. This lucky genetic mutation produces higher levels of anandamide — the so-called bliss molecule and our own natural marijuana — in our brains.” Those who have this mutation are also “less likely to become addicted to marijuana and, possibly, other drugs — presumably because they don’t need the calming effects that marijuana provides.” Unfortunately only about 20% people have the mutation.

For those without the lucky genetic variation, the author has found that marijuana is generally effective for anxiety, and the reasons for this are physiological. It turns out that marijuana targets “the endocannabinoid system [which] is closely related to the brain’s own anandamide.” And when anandamide “binds to the cannabinoid receptor, it has a calming effect … We all have anandamide, but those who have won the lucky gene have more of it because they have less of an enzyme called FAAH, which deactivates anandamide. It is a mutation in the FAAH gene that leads to more of the bliss molecule anandamide bathing the brain.”

So the evidence strongly supports that the mutation doesn’t just correlate with less anxiety, it causes people to have less anxiety. The author’s moral conclusion is that “there is more to abstinence than grit and moral fiber: Having a double dose of a gene mutation gives you a big advantage in being able to “just say no.” Of course the author notes that “… these studies should not be taken to mean that biology calls all the shots … The environment plays a critical role and can sometimes even trump genetics.”

As for the use of marijuana to treat anxiety the author is skeptical.

The problem is that cannabis swamps and overpowers the brain’s cannabinoid system, and there is evidence that chronic use may not just relieve anxiety but interfere with learning and memory. What we really need is a drug that can boost anandamide — our bliss molecule — for those who are genetically disadvantaged.

Reflections – I have written recently about issues of freedom and responsibility regarding anxiety and depression. I think we should accept that many things are out of control, especially the past, while accepting that we have influence on the present and future. So I agree with the author’s claim that such diseases have a strong genetic influence.

As for marijuana, while I have never been a user myself, I disagree with the author’s conclusion. However, before I continue let me issue two disclaimers: (Disclaimer #1 – I am not a medical doctor. Disclaimer #2 – I don’t advocate using marijuana if it is against the law.)

Alcohol, cigarettes, tylenol, antidepressants, antipsychotics and benzodiazepines have more bad side-effects and are more dangerous than marijuana by a considerable amount. This is a fact. So in a cost-benefit analysis between marijuana and persistent anxiety, or marijuana and these other drugs, marijuana win easily. Ask yourself this. Do you want cortisol coursing through your veins? Do you want the awful side-effects that accompany so many of the mainstream anxiety medications? Do you want to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? Do you want to experience life-effecting and possibly life-destroying anxiety? Or do you want to feel better with some possible minor cost?

I think the rational choice is clear. If marijuana is legal where you live, then there is little cost and much benefit in trying it for anxiety. (I include the legality constraint because people are still incarcerated for marijuana use, although that is patently unjust.) Yes, what your psychiatrist and psychotherapist say is true; there is no demonstrable scientific evidence for marijuana helping with major anxiety. But this is because the government classifies marijuana and a Stage I drug, and it is thus not available for normal research.

And while I’m at it I think nicotine gum would also be a better, safer alternative than most of the psychopharmaceutical drugs currently in use.

Share this:

(This article was reprinted in the online magazine of the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, February 21, 2014)

New York Times food expert and op-ed columnist Mark Bittman wrote a recent piece, What Is the Purpose of Society? Obviously the title captured my interest. But what could an expert on healthy food have to say about the purpose of society? A lot it turns out.

Bittman begins,

The world of food and agriculture symbolizes most of what’s gone wrong in the United States. But because food is plentiful for most people, and the damage that conventional agriculture does isn’t readily evident to everyone, it’s important that we look deeper, beyond food, to the structure that underlies most decisions: the political economy.

Bittman argues that progressives don’t pressure the “Democrats to take strong stands on everything from environmental protection to gun control to income inequality …” Instead they accept that most politicians are indebted to monied interests. But the big problems of the country—income inequality, race relations, climate change, unhealthy food, immigration law, education—won’t be fixed by creating a nice business climate. So he offers a different vision.

Shouldn’t adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care be universal? Isn’t everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn’t we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?

These are the questions we should be asking ourselves, not how do we create a better business environment. Consider what this implies about the purpose of people, to say nothing about the meaning of life. The business of America should not be business, but well-being.

No philosopher can read this and not be reminded of Aristotle’s assessment of governments. They are good to the extent they provide the conditions in which all their citizens can live well. But does America today do this or even try to? As Bittman says:

For example, is contemporary American agriculture a system for nourishing people and providing a livelihood for farmers? Or is it one for denuding the nation’s topsoil while poisoning land, water, workers and consumers and enriching corporations? Our collective actions would indicate that our principles favor the latter; that has to change … For example, if we had a national agreement that food is not just a commodity, a way to make money, but instead a way to nourish people and the planet and a means to safeguard our future, we could begin to reconfigure the system for that purpose.

Bittman understands that there will be unintended consequences that follow from tinkering with complex political and economic systems,

But without an agreement on goals, without statements of purpose, we are going to continue to see changes that are not in the interest of the majority. Increasingly, it’s corporations and not governments that are determining how the world works. As unrepresentative as government might seem right now, there is at least a chance of improving it, whereas corporations will always act in their own interests.

Bittman challenges us to rethink political philosophy and political economy, whose goal should be to create a society in which everyone can flourish. A society so much different from America today.

The big ideas and strategies for how we should manage society and thrive with the planet are not a set of rules handed down from on high. To develop them for now and the future is a major challenge, and we — progressives and our allies — have to work harder at it. No one is going to figure it out for us.